New YES studio album- Mirror to the Sky

[aith01]

I can't stop listening to the title track from the new album. That little guitar riff at the beginning which comes back in the middle is so great!

It's very un-Yes-ish.

I’ve got to spend more time with it I think. I’ve listened about once a day since I got it, but I’m still not sure how I feel about the title track. It definitely starts off great though!

It will probably grow on me more, and at any rate I don’t dislike it. I’m probably not in the best headspace right now to appreciate it fully on its own terms.

[julioscissors]

I’ve got to spend more time with it I think. I’ve listened about once a day since I got it, but I’m still not sure how I feel about the title track. It definitely starts off great though!

7:50 into the title track is the sweet spot. Such a cool riff, Downes' piano is nice, and Schellen's percussion is amazing. I think it's one of the most beautiful moments I've heard from Yes.

[Steve983]

The penny has finally dropped for me now I think, for some of us this album takes a lot of plays to get into it seems. The more I listen to Unknown Place the more I like it. That also goes for the title track, Luminosity and Circles of Time which is a nice ending. Overall I'd wish for less orchestra and less Howe vocals plus more of Geoff's keyboards and more of Billy's vocals but all in all I'd rate it 8/10 and slightly better than TQ.

[bondegezou]

I’ve had the new discs a few days and have given them an uninterrupted listen. I find familiarity with the two singles has made me warm to them quite a bit, and they do seem to contain most of the melodic hooks. The next two songs just will not stick in my head at all, I’m not feeling anything there. I do enjoy the closing acoustic song. The big title track feels a little bit prog by numbers, just too many disparate threads sewn together. It worries me that the desire to create an epic for the prog audience means they lose focus or the desire to be ruthless in the edit suite.

I would recommend further listens to the title track. I would not describe it as having "many disparate threads". Compared to some other Yes songs of the same length, it has fewer distinct themes and it focuses more on variation of its themes. Downes said it was longer at some point and they cut it down for the release.

[bondegezou]

Maybe it's age or something else, but when I hear some of Howe's motifs nowadays I'm immediately reminded of someone doing exercises or scales. They're very mechanical and familiar simply because I'm a musician and I've spent probably 1/4 of my musical life doing scales and other finger exercises.

Agreed, I think this is an unfortunate tendency in some of Howe's recent work.

[bondegezou]

It's a very pretty song, with an engaging melody and lots of signature Howe guitar. I just wish the strings (are those real strings or a sample?) were replaced by the kind of thing that a Wakeman (or dare I say Moraz?) might have brought to the table in an earlier incarnation, maybe a touch of piano and Moog just to make it sound more Yessish.

Those are real strings. Most of the acoustic guitar is Davison, with Howe adding some steel and other parts.

[Jacob Holm-Lupo]

I had some time in my car today running errands so I played Mirror then Quest back to back.. I know I'm not the only one but I simply can't accept that Jon was the best choice as a singer/songwriter at the time they dumped Benoit.. for starters his voice lacks warmth and grates on me.. and after listening to both albums straight thru.. IMHO he's simply not a very good singer... Just to salvage the trip I put on The Yes Album on my way home.. ahh.. bravo the 70's..

I agree with this, and I think it's one of the main stumbling blocks for the band now - in addition to a lack of self-editing in the songwriting department. As I have said elsewhere, these new, rather contrived Yes melodies, that I guess Sherwood and Davison are largely responsible for, would need a much more confident singer to pull them off. Davison is not it.

[Sunlight Caller]

I would recommend further listens to the title track. I would not describe it as having "many disparate threads". Compared to some other Yes songs of the same length, it has fewer distinct themes and it focuses more on variation of its themes. Downes said it was longer at some point and they cut it down for the release.

Oh believe me I am persevering Henry, as I always do with Yes! One play a day, to let it seep into my aging cerebral cortex.

... and "disparate" was an unkind word to apply, it is becoming more cohesive with each listen.

[aith01]

As I have said elsewhere, these new, rather contrived Yes melodies, that I guess Sherwood and Davison are largely responsible for, would need a much more confident singer to pull them off. Davison is not it.

I'm sorry... You think Davison is 'not a confident enough singer'? How exactly?

[Frumious B]

If anything I feel like Davison over sings. If he were to dial things back a hair, simplify his approach and cut down on the “Tra La La La De Da”isms then I would probably find his stuff more appealing.

[Scott Bails]

If anything I feel like Davison over sings. If he were to dial things back a hair, simplify his approach and cut down on the “Tra La La La De Da”isms then I would probably find his stuff more appealing.

Not sure why it was fine when Anderson sang nonsense but it's less appealing when Davison does it.

[Frumious B]

Not sure why it was fine when Anderson sang nonsense but it's less appealing when Davison does it.

I’m not talking about lyric content so much as I am talking about a technical approach that I associate with show tunes/glee club etc. that Davison favors, like he is singing Yes songs as if they were an audition for a revival of Hair or maybe Godspell. It bugs me much more when he is doing the Anderson era material than it does when he does his own material, but it still grates a little. Contrast with the more pure and simple Andersonian approach. I know people complain about Anderson being twee and all that, but to my ears he might as well be singing Lou Reed in comparison.

[aith01]

I’m not talking about lyric content so much as I am talking about a technical approach that I associate with show tunes/glee club etc. that Davison favors, like he is singing Yes songs as if they were an audition for a revival of Hair or maybe Godspell. It bugs me much more when he is doing the Anderson era material than it does when he does his own material, but it still grates a little. Contrast with the more pure and simple Andersonian approach. I know people complain about Anderson being twee and all that, but to my ears he might as well be singing Lou Reed in comparison.

While I get what you're saying, Anderson is just as twee as Davison, IMO. Invention of Knowledge, and even The Ladder are examples I would point to.

[Jacob Holm-Lupo]

I'm sorry... You think Davison is 'not a confident enough singer'? How exactly?

Compared to Anderson he is not. He doesn’t project much, and at least the way he sounds on records, his voice is quite thin. I guess «assertive» might be a better word.

[aith01]

Compared to Anderson he is not. He doesn’t project much, and at least the way he sounds on records, his voice is quite thin. I guess «assertive» might be a better word.

That sounds more like you just don't like his vocal cords, rather than it being an objective matter of confidence or assertiveness on Davison's part.

I have been a fan of Jon Davison since first hearing him on Glass Hammer's If back in 2010. When it was announced he was joining Yes a few years later, it made perfect sense to me. I still think he's a good fit.

Have you seen him in concert?

[Kcrimso]

Have you seen him in concert?

I have. I did not like it. Am I allowed not to like it?

Anyway I think Davison is better on studio albums.

[Frumious B]

While I get what you're saying, Anderson is just as twee as Davison, IMO. Invention of Knowledge, and even The Ladder are examples I would point to.

But Anderson is really not a trained singer so his approach is a more naturalist one. I’d even argue that he pioneered a vocal approach that became associated with what was later called “Dream Pop”. When I think of singers who are sort of musical successors to Anderson I actually think more of vocalists like Elizabeth Fraser, Jonsi and Bjork than I do of any prog rock type singers.

[Frumious B]

When Davison is singing his own songs it’s much less of an irritant.

[aith01]

I have. I did not like it. Am I allowed not to like it?

I don't care if you don't like Davison in concert. That wasn't my point.

My point was with regard to the 'he's not a confident singer' assertion (and that he's 'simply not a good singer'), which I think seeing him in person would disprove. He's very obviously comfortable and confident onstage. No reason that wouldn't also be the case in the studio.

As a matter of taste, it makes sense that some people won't like his voice/singing. There's no need to try to denigrate him by going further and calling him a bad singer, just to try making oneself look justified in not liking him. That's baloney.

[aith01]

But Anderson is really not a trained singer so his approach is a more naturalist one. I’d even argue that he pioneered a vocal approach that became associated with what was later called “Dream Pop”. When I think of singers who are sort of musical successors to Anderson I actually think more of vocalists like Elizabeth Fraser, Jonsi and Bjork than I do of any prog rock type singers.

Sure, I get that. I don't notice any less twee-ness in Anderson's stuff than in Davison's, but they're still two different singers with different approaches. Anderson was a pioneer, I agree.

[Frumious B]

Sure, I get that. I don't notice any less twee-ness in Anderson's stuff than in Davison's, but they're still two different singers with different approaches. Anderson was a pioneer, I agree.

If twee is defined as “affectedly or excessively dainty, delicate, cute, or quaint” then I’m using it in the “affectedly” sense of the word.

[Jacob Holm-Lupo]

I don't care if you don't like Davison in concert. That wasn't my point.

My point was with regard to the 'he's not a confident singer' assertion (and that he's 'simply not a good singer'), which I think seeing him in person would disprove. He's very obviously comfortable and confident onstage. No reason that wouldn't also be the case in the studio.

As a matter of taste, it makes sense that some people won't like his voice/singing. There's no need to try to denigrate him by going further and calling him a bad singer, just to try making oneself look justified in not liking him. That's baloney.

Well, don’t we all make value judgments on music and musicians every day on this forum? Right or wrong, we’re all entitled to our opinions on bad or good. As someone with 25+ years of experience as a musician, I certainly don’t feel less qualified than many others here in judging the quality of a singer. Based on what I have heard of Davison, I don’t personally hold him in high esteem. I certainly think Anderson is a vastly better performer.
But as has been mentioned, Davison comes off better singing his own tunes. I like his vocals on Future Memories, for instance.

[aith01]

Well, don’t we all make value judgments on music and musicians every day on this forum? Right or wrong, we’re all entitled to our opinions on bad or good. As someone with 25+ years of experience as a musician, I certainly don’t feel less qualified than many others here in judging the quality of a singer. Based on what I have heard of Davison, I don’t personally hold him in high esteem. I certainly think Anderson is a vastly better performer.
But as has been mentioned, Davison comes off better singing his own tunes. I like his vocals on Future Memories, for instance.

That's fine. I know you don't hold him in high esteem. Being a musician myself I don't feel I'm any less qualified either, and I just choose to voice my disagreement with what you say about Davison.

But if you haven't seen him performing in concert, you're only getting part of the story about who he is as a performer.

Is Anderson the better performer? Yeah, I would say so. That doesn't make Davison 'not a good vocalist' though. Anderson sets a high bar for anyone to try to clear.

[aith01]

If twee is defined as “affectedly or excessively dainty, delicate, cute, or quaint” then I’m using it in the “affectedly” sense of the word.

Yeah, I see what you mean. And I'm not saying you're wrong BTW. It's just that for me I don't notice Davison as being any more twee than Anderson. I'd rank them both about the same in that regard (for better and for worse ).

Also in all fairness, I have heard very little of Anderson's work outside of Yes. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[Jacob Holm-Lupo]

Is Anderson the better performer? Yeah, I would say so. That doesn't make Davison 'not a good vocalist' though. Anderson sets a high bar for anyone to try to clear.

On that we're 100% in agreement